THE MADRAS CITY COOP BUILDING SOCEITY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1443/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative building society, failed to file its return of income for AY 2016-17. The AO reopened the case and made an addition of Rs. 1,58,55,000/- as unexplained money, disallowing a claimed deduction u/s. 80P. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 118 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the cash deposits could be treated as unexplained money without a proper opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 80P,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 11.05.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्याययर्क सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1443/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Madras City Co-operative The Income Tax Officer, Building Society Limited, vs. Corp Ward-10(3), 101, Vellala Street, Chennai. Purasawalkam, Flower Road, Chennai – 600 084. [PAN: AADAT-9331-R] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. R. Venkatanarayanan, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.05.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”), dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 24.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

:-2-: ITA. No:1443/Chny/2026. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Building Society, engaged in the business of development and sale of housing society properties and did not file its return of income for AY 2016-17. As per information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,58,55,000/- in savings bank account maintained with Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd during the assessment year. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act and statutory notices were issued to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee partly submitted its reply along with copy of return of income filed in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act. Meanwhile, the AO issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act and obtained bank statements from the bank. On perusal of the documents submitted by the assessee and details available on record, the AO observed that the assessee is not found to be eligible for the deduction u/s.80P of the Act, which it has claimed in the ITR and is being disallowed. Since, the assessee failed to furnish the complete documentary evidence, the AO completed the reassessment by passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 24.02.2024 by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act and made an addition of Rs.1,58,55,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and by arriving total income of Rs.1,58,55.000/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 22.07.2024 with a delay in filing an appeal.

4.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine, due to delay in filing an appeal by 118 days. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the delay in filing an appeal due to circumstances beyond the control of the

:-3-: ITA. No:1443/Chny/2026. assessee and various administrative difficulties in the appointment of the head of the society by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Further, the ld.AR of the assessee argued before us that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cash deposits represented receipts arising from the regular business activities of the assessee and therefore could not be treated as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of AO. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

6.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the appeal was to be filed before the ld.CIT(A) by the assessee within 30 days of the service, but the assessee has filed an appeal with delay of 118 days. The assessee has been negligent in filing an appeal within the time limit provided and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and on appeal the same has been dismissed in limine by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to delay in filing of the appeal before the first appellate authority.

8.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the before ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had filed the condonation of delay in his form 35 itself and hence, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say,

:-4-: ITA. No:1443/Chny/2026. the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

9.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वर्की ) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T VARKEY) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) न्याययर्क सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखासदस्य/Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, दिन ांक/Dated, the 25th May, 2026 Devadas आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधि/DR 5. गार्ा फाईल/GF

Digitally signed by DEVADAS DEVADAS GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.05.27 10:30:33 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →